Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.)

THIS post’s TITLE:

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF.” About 7,000 words at Nov. 3).

A four-paragraph summary and one “**” (extended, with images) (mid-way) right before I publish:

1.

I split a post in two.  Then I split the first post, publishing its preview section as its own post October 27, then the first post October 30, and now this second,  Oct. 31, 2019.  Some internal references between these may be shared where it says “see below” or “herein.” While published on three separate days they belong together as a unit.

2.

Both prior posts incorporated some links to my concurrent Twitter threads featuring (my) recent discoveries of more organizations, people, and websites through illustrating HOW “Parent Coordination” as a specialized, trained practice (specifically) moved from Canada to the UK** while maintaining close, acknowledged connections with the Canada and the USA, namely, AFCC as an organization. That’s why “FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals” often quickly reveals the propagation/replication/train-the-trainers overseas expansion process.

In fact (as I recall) I’d started simply with a recent lookup of the AFCC-Ontario charitable registration in Canada, printed out the board of directors, picked one (female) whose name was familiar to me by association with “reunification” programming (and as mentioned in some mainstream media — with NO reference to AFCC in the media at all, generally) about a year ago and earlier.  Looking again at that website quickly led me to the c.v. of a younger (male) mentee which cited other websites (and people) intent on promoting parenting coordination in Canada, and at least one situation where it migrated, — apparently around 2015/2016/2017 — to the UK.

Separately, I’d noticed (didn’t blog, may have mentioned in passing on Twitter) how very recent the “Single Family Courts” were installed in the UK as a separate jurisdiction and administrative operations.  This seems to have been around 2014.  Coincidence(?) that not long after, another push for “parent coordination” is made? after which (Feb. 2018) AFCC has a [by definition, invitation-only, private) consultation with “Relate” at St. Georges (Windsor Castle).

AFCC — but not only AFCC — has long been featured on this blog, with the various public (federal, state, other) and private funding streams this organization teaches and/or coaches, it seems, its members to organize replicating networks of nonprofits to take advantage of in solving the basic problems of population management and control.

Thus each new generation’s workers becomes aware enough and groomed to JUST the level of cognizance of “how government (and, in general, its finances) works” to become obedient workers. We are to have a greater sense of independence, choice, and leadership who cares and listens to us than actually exists.

The populations (in more than one developed country) are also split between managerial class and the managed “hordes.” In this environment, it increasingly seems that one of the safest jobs is to become part of the (social services focused) managerial class; the idea to keep the pot bubbling but not boiling over and ruining the ongoing “food chain” off which the owner classes feed and hire others to work.

Financial, Intellectual or even political independence from the standard allowable deviation of an increasingly planned economy is discouraged.  Obviously this paragraph is my jaundiced opinion, but I still post links to the facts on which it’s based….and discuss how I arrived at it.  The next “**” just summarizes from recent posts.

**By showing links to a fairly recent example in images and quotes, as indicators.  I’m not saying that’s THE only way, but it is one to become aware of.

EXAMPLE: Overlapping nonprofit affiliations:  one individual may belong to two or three AND have a government connection, AND (case in point) have been already previously mentored by known AFCC members running, with likewise overlapping and cross-border membership, nonprofits to run the programs which AFCC family court judges (Judges whose membership is known) can order — in the US has been established, in the UK is I see, now desired — parents to participate.  Where parents cannot afford, pro bono or legal help is sought to facilitate more facilitators in their lives… AFCC Ontario (reg 11-20-2009) 22 Trustees FYE Jun2018, incl Ahsbourne, Bala, ShelyPolak et al (℅ CRA-ARC.GC.CA),T3010 Reg’dCharity Info Return|SectB – Dirs:T’tees+ Like Officials (viewed 2019Oct26Sat)

[Briefly and in part only: Barbara Jo Fidler:  AFCC, Families Moving Forward (“FMF” may not be an entity, but has a website and is a known program name] Overcoming Barriers, Inc. (more details below and previously shown on this blog), per his c.v. AT “FMF” mentored at least in part Jared Norton (of FMF and Riverdale Mediation) in Toronto, Ontario Canada. That c.v. mentioned among his credits a name I hadn’t heard, “Family Law In Partnership” (citing “Gillian Bishop and Felicity Shedden) minus any identifying suffix) which turned out to be a UK organization (See Post #2 for dates) which then set up a FLiP Faculty in only January 2017 after having taken the “Parent Coordination Roadshow” on the road to the UK. A few more images available on recent Twitter threads, which other posts linked to.  To see the networks from the outside- in  is a lot more work and effort than being ON them working with or for family lawyers or in the family courts, expanding connections once the infrastructure, generally, is in place.  That’s unfair to basic comprehension of government itself, in any of (this example) the three countries involved in just a few professionals’ lives: Canada, USA, and the UK.  That’s among the reasons I say it resembles RICO more than honest provision of necessary services//LGH

UK Parenting Coordination (PC) Roadshows | Riverdale Mediation (June 19, 2017) this pdf 2019Oct28<~~Link to pdf brief post on RiverdaleMediation.com from which I learned more about the FLiP connection…

Gillian Bishop, per May 22, 2018 article “Law Firm launches diploma in psychological supervision of family lawyers” (posted by Nick Hilborne in “LegalFutures: Market Intelligence for the Future of Family Law”) showing FLiP connection to Christopher Mills, Family Consultant and Psychotherapist (FLiP offering a diploma in Family Law Supervision, sounds like self-care for lawyers; she wrote a forward to his book after being a “guinea pig” for that “three years ago” (about 2015).  Then Parent Coordination Training 2016 in Toronto and the Parent Coordination family law tour (Taking Mr. Norton along) in?/as written up June 2017(?), and in January 2017 (I looked up separately, FLiP Faculty Ltd. was incorporated in the UK with just 100 GP spit between three individuals and FLiP, which is “Family Law in Partnership, Ltd.”  [Two-image gallery:]

Gillian Bishop (May 22, 2018 article) Family Law Supervision diploma (Christopher Mills, psychotherapist)

Gillian Bishop (as listed on FLipFaculty.org, entity inc. January 2017) (note mentions mediation, Resolution, Christopher Mills, Parenting Coordination etc.)

Read the fine print in Ms. Bishop’s qualifications as found on that new entity’s website (all “Trainers” listed alphabetically).  It appears to have been formed to run just two types of trainings:  Primarily Parent Coordination (see image above with 8-part) and  Family Law Supervision.

Riverdale Family Mediation Services (Canada) (1 of 2 doorways into the site, the other reads “Trainings”). Here, A President, (Hilary Linton) a Partner (Elizabeth Hyde), and a Retired Ontario Judge (Clifford S. Nelson) are listed. How Found? Jared Norton (MSW 2010, of FMF’s) c.v. had many references to Riverdale Mediation, which also listed the “UK PC Roadshows” (see nearby pdf) //LGH Oct. 31, 2019

Elizabeth Hyde, as shown with all the suffixed initials at RiverdaleMediation.com Notice the emphasis on trainings. One of the entities (Mediate393.com Inc.) seems to have an “in” with the court referrals, but I have not looked up this or the other one listed here (yet).

3.

KNOW THAT: Where you see Parent Coordination you WILL hear “Parent Alienation” which, generally, indicates “AFCC was here…” either training, or inspiring the transnational establishment of more nonprofits to work with government and promote its ideologies, that is, social engineering through linguistic indoctrination and incrementally increasing control of finances.  As AFCC is now openly working with Cafcass, differences between the two operations, while organized differently (AFCC in the US is a private non-profit, Cafcass is not) the agenda’s are blended.

4.

Thus, in any developed country the public pays to educate itself/themselves on both sides of the conflict and for personnel to settle the conflicts.  Tax-exempt foundations “eat it up” as good for their lines of work also… being the good guys, just helping (each respective) government do its job better while rotating personnel in and out of foundation-sponsored positions to direct employment, or at times both…

THIS post’s TITLE, again:

Trouble Navigating the Pro/Con “PAS” Conflict? Pt. 2 | The Rx Remains: FIRST ID the AFCC Professionals, THEN Grill the Remaining Violence-Prevention Ones About Their Silence. Then Blow the Whistle on Both Sectors. (Published Oct. 31, 2019.) (short-link ends “-brF,” this part likely under 6,500 words).

This post has a stronger tone of voice and more of certain kinds of details (drill-downs) than its counterpart, written earlier.  It has I believe more links and a stronger tone of voice, reflecting other things I’m observing having taken place in Canada, the UK (specifically in England, Scotland and Wales) and to a degree in Australia, most of which also tie into what has been going on for decades in the USA too, regarding the two-edged sword (?) of protecting children and women from abuse while sponsoring “family-based” programming and setting in place specialized family courts — versus just family “proceedings” — and seeking to dominate who runs them collectively.

A serious conversation needs to be held around this small but vocal and “ensconced in positions of power — or advising power”) entity (and its chapters) the AFCC as it pertains to the origins and conduct of the family court.  Tweaking family court conduct after it’s been set up from the outside in with the likes of AFCC is a losing proposition (see frog attempting to climb out of a well.  One foot up, two feet back).  

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.

---

TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.

---

(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).

---

(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???

---

---

re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)

---

Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp”  This is a SHORT post!)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal

I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next.  FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text.  I think it makes enough points for now.

---

Nov. 24, 2018 note:  See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.

 

NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES

This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms…

---

Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept.  Do you really know what it represents?

This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda.   In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it.  Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.

We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it.  That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!

Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed).  At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”

Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names)  (like “alienators”) for those reporting it!  If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!

That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations.  Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be.  Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone  calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”)  ….

“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used.  People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level.  This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming.   It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.).    Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.

It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future.  Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets.  How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…).  But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.

I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting.  Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered.  Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”

IT’s NOT!  It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.”  This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person.  Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.”  Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too..  JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.  

The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change.  It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field.  Now, which one is better funded and by how much?  I’ve looked — have you?  [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]

---

(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):

The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity.  The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.

Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.

I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.

(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC?  When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors.  Why give it away indiscriminately?  Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..

The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field.  Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes.  Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.

At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.

---

---

WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.

---

Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents.  (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)

Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation  — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses.

I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image.

It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area.  Northern California was on fire.

AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2022, update for re-posting].

Post title: AFCC’s Family Court Review Editorial Board and Their Respective Affiliations. [Publ. May 21, 2018, with March 21, 2022, update for re-posting]. (generated case-sensitive shortlink ends “-92R”) (5,600 words as copyedited 2022,**)

The table at the bottom of this post isn’t current (of course — its’ now 2022!) but outlines  as a straightforward visual the various countries AFCC board members come from  — most are still from the USA — and emphasizes their affiliations.It’s good to remember. This could be said of many publications, but in the context of the family courts, #FamilyCourtReform (common term on Twitter now), and #FamilyCourtReformists (my version of the same), it matters.  Remember, the editorial board of the journal isn’t the same as the board of directors of the private association.  Both should be kept in mind, and the latter’s tax return and filing history. As shown, it’s actually a minor — pretty small — organization.

#FamilyCourtReformists don’t like to talk about AFCC, at least not to criticize it, and don’t want us to either, especially not where they’re found among colleagues arguing with known AFCC membership — so that is EXACTLY what I do.  For all I know the #FamilyCourtReformists may also be majority #AFCC, those that are practicing lawyers, psychologists, or who run nonprofits doing business with divorcing families (or the family courts).  If so, however, that’s not acknowledge on their websites, generally.  I’ll say it again — without the truth of the membership organizations coming out (especially this one) and how active AFCC is in training judges and family lawyers, custody evaluators AND collaborating throughout (and all along) to frame and reframe “domestic violence” — alongside presentations by US federally-funded DV nonprofits (specifically, Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP.org), formerly doing business under the nonprofit which came up with (?) or at least promoted “The Power & Control Wheel” at “TheDuluthModel.org”

(more) 2022 UPDATE COMMENTS:

Nearly four years later (late March, 2022), I have re-publicized this post on Twitter, perhaps and put a link to here on a new post (full title with short-link ending “-dXu”  shown below) just for that purpose. To do so I’m changing revised the border and emphasis colors from bright red to a darker red and corrected a margin issue, but no other major editing planned. (I did some copyediting for clarity and in a few places where I thought the wording was “cogent” (good) formed call-outs looking approximately like this (larger font, this background-color)

---

Why Now? As sometimes happens I was reviewing Admin Dashboard for a different post from May, 2018 and found this one instead. WordPress, or at least this theme, organizes the Search Filter (when using “by Date”) by month and year, one month at a time in a drop-down menu). I was actually about to re-arrange and re-publish my 2018 Table of Contents…

“Now” is because of current events (explained more on the new post calling attention to this one’s contents) and because I wanted to…  //LGH March 21, 2022).

. . . . . .  [A passionate rant-update used to be here… I moved it, and have now deleted it…//2022]

Now that I’ve just had my say, I expect I’ll taken that “say” to a new post linking to this which will shorten the introduction to this one but keep its few other format and copyediting (for clarity, and a few “call-outs” sections) parts.

Here’s where all that went, just published March 21, 2022:

Journals, Their Editors, Sponsors + Publishers | #FamilyCourtRvw: The Voice of AFCC w Help from Hofstra — Editorial Board and Access-Visitation Grants as I re-explained/posted May 21, 2018. [Repost with my March 21, 2022 Update**]. (short-link ends “-dXu”)

If I could have five-line titles (or post “subtitles” as some magazines do), this one would be, approximately: Why #FamilyCourtReformists (#NFVLCgwu #NSPC et al.) pushing #VAWA Reauthorization with #KaydensLaw Don’t/Won’t/Can’t expose AFCC]

Because that is indeed what is on my mind at the moment...

---

There is a list of “tags” at the end and readers as always can submit comments.

“PROLOGUE” — my “Why” other than, “It’s Time!…” [[as written in May, 2018]]

In the prologue I have a few resources and links to further explore “State Access and Visitation Programs” grants (Federal to State government entities under HHS, CFDA #93597)) which exists to “support” the states in establishing the types of services likely to be now part of any family court process.  That is, if there’s any way once litigation or even motions to hear begin, more personnel, services or players can be added in and blamed on one or both parents to justify.  The infrastructure (network) already exists, and business and services are going to be flowing through it to sustain the investment so long as we (the public) allow this to continue.

A key part of any power network is one which involves judges, lawyers, and “social scientists” with a token nod towards the issue of domestic violence advocacy… Or faking domestic violence /family court reform advocacy by talking about the symptoms, assuming/alleging causes without even exposing the private power networks’ intersection with public institutions, public funding, and centers at both private and public universities.

AFCC’s “international interdisciplinary” academic journal abbreviated “Fam.Ct.Rvw” and published on-line, is produced jointly (but under AFCC “auspices” and as its voice) through a private university in New York State called “Hofstra. I’ve established recently again on separate posts (referencing the new Editor in Chief) how Family Court Review, the publication, is indeed “the voice of AFCC,” or this could be obtained separately through a Google search.

All people involved in family courts should understand the relationship and note the names of those involved in this private association’s and its members’ private relationship with a private university aimed at “transforming the family court system” — globally, to align policy in the US, for example, with polices overseas — by “subject matter jurisdiction.” Much progress has been made towards ITS (not necessarily individual citizens’, parents’ (mothers or fathers) or children’s goals of justice, due process, and the ability to lead lives without being forced into the “behavioral health/Mental Health Archipelago.”) goals.

Also, on AFCC’s Twitter account (“@AFCCTweets”) I learned that recently it participated with UK (England Wales mostly?) federated “RELATE” charity (with Janet Walker representing both groups) in a 24-hour “Consultation” February 2018  at St. Georges (Windsor Castle) (See next three images, for more, search my Twitter account “LetUsGetHonest,” or theirs)

What about concerned citizens’** response to all this (these power networks in the private arena calling down funds from the public arena to regulate and profit from regulating “families and children…”?

What should our response be?

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

This post is about 10,000 words.  Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does.  In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters.  One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.

---

Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published.  Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title “While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”  

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog.  It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s:  unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below.  The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012.  Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:

---

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

A Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

 …

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d.  Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system.  Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.”  Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind.  These are rarely 100% neutral.  [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name.  It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members.  This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them.  Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC?  I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY:  The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show.  The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind…

---

But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office.  Then, they combined them.  Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts.   “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC.  AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture (#3 of 3 on a “Red Herring Alert” Post and HHS/OFA’s “Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood” (“HMRF”) Ongoing Distributions)

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture

I JUST FOUND RECENTLY:  Meyer Elkin Feb. 27, 1992 Oral interview by David Kuroda, found on Video, posted on May 6, 2013.  The 1992 transcript is on my right sidebar (has been for some years) and a link also within the summary below.

Meyer Elkin (d. 1994?) has more to do with the origins of family court than most people outside the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts may realize.  This would be a good listen (and/or read) showing the original inspirations, which continue today…  It’s good to hear folklore, which this is,  (self-reporting on one’s own work, as interviewed by someone engaged in similar business and as a “founder” of such a movement) in the folklorists’ own words..  As summarized on YouTube — bookmark this in your memory please, and take some time to consider what you find in that interview, how it may relate to what we are experiencing today in the same courts:

Published on May 6, 2013

Interviewed by David Kuroda on February 27, 1992

An interview with Meyer Elkin as he discusses the beginning of his career in social work; education in social work at Berkeley; early positions during social work career; work with the Jewish Committee for Personal Service; the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles.

Meyer Elkin, a social worker with an MSW from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Social Welfare, created the Conciliation Court in Los Angeles as a vehicle for the Court to provide mediation and counseling to families considering divorce. It became the prototype for other conciliation court programs elsewhere in the United States.

To view a transcript of the interview, visit https://libraries.usc.edu/california-…

The California Social Welfare Archives (CSWA), established in 1979, is a non-profit organization operating under the auspices of the USC School of Social Work and affiliated with the University Libraries. It collects and preserves documents and personal histories of significant contributors to the evolution of social welfare ensuring their availability to future generations — students, teachers, historians, and researchers. Collection activity includes gathering and archiving social welfare materials of historical significance, conducting oral history interviews with contributors to social welfare solutions in California, and creating events to publicly recognize significant contributors to California social welfare.

For a written transcript of the interview, please email cswa@usc.edu.

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts jointly publishes Family Court Review with Hofstra University (Maurice A. Deane? School of Law).  A look at its editorial board would be a lesson in itself in who’s been running these operations, or trying to anyhow.

---

For the context, see blog title.  I wrote out, non-stop and almost intuitively, what I believed was relevant to the viewing audience of a 4/26/2016 post which had actually raised information on the HMRF funding — below detailed, case-specific information about no less than FIVE criminal prosecutions arising out of ONE high-profile (at least in the Dakota County, Minnesota) case with which many family court litigants might identify, regardless of whether they may be on the same socioeconomic scale (apparently — high) of the two family lines involved.

That post actually has given rise to what will be FIVE other posts:  This 3-part series, one I already published, and another one which is looking in more detail at a specific “FBO” (Faith Based Organization) in Georgia with some peculiar fiscal habits I haven’t gotten to the bottom of.

Such as, how HHS is citing (again) the wrong city and address for this grantee, as compared to what the grantee is writing on its own tax returns; [##straightened out below; see “Georgia Corporation Search Results” found after THIS post was published.  It doesn’t “straighten out” why a Board of Directors would use a different address on its federal tax returns than when reporting to the State of Georgia, however…];

…and how the grantee is functioning apparently under two DIFFERENT EIN#s, only one which shows up as the legitimate recipient of tax-deductible contributions, and another which has been used since 2014 (fiscal year 2013 as I recall),

…and — more to the point — why again, there is enough internal inconsistency in this organization’s reporting of its predominantly ABSTINENCE_focused activities (along with healthy marriage, etc.) — such that it is self-reporting on the organization details, receipt of profits in EVERY category of program service activity– but this does NOT show on Page 1 (at all) and it does not show on the Schedules at the back of tax returns which are supposed to also report this, along with the grants.

Again, the organization itself (according to their tax returns) seem to exist primarily courtesy federal HHS grants (and some, other levels — state or county I guess, which might likewise still represent HHS grants to the state, passed through to the county, or directly to that county) contributions, and supposedly NOT running a profitable business, courtesy the taxpayers, tax-exempt, and without admitting to the profits. But, that certainly does appear to be what it’s doing.

---

Let me talk about this for a bit:

A big case of “Huh??? !!” regarding just ONE, and hardly the largest one among others, grantee in Georgia…

(running programming from another grantee, in Colorado who at a certain point not too many years ago, got mixed up in an Uganda President’s “kill-the-gays” movement and had to backtrack, apparently ALSO change organization names and corporate business entities a few times, issue a disclaimer “THAT wasn’t our intention!” (searchable on this blog and on-line)

..and that entity in Georgia’s lack of demonstrating (year after year) even an understanding of how to fill out a tax return, let alone those tax returns reflecting what HHS says the organization is and where it operates (!!).  Even a casual look only leads to even more “Questionability” on the ultimate purpose (agenda) behind these HMRF and post-PRWORA-based federal grants systems in the first place.

Early Morning Intuitive on “the Larger Picture” (#2 of 3: TAGGS, FBOs, Competitive Abstinence Education, and other Oxymoronic Public Policy Labels)

….So few people are keeping these topics “on the front burner,” despite their regular impact on the federal budget (a few billion over the years) but much larger on the public, including confusion, family partition, and fragmentation of understanding!

As these things go, I write, sometimes the core post in one sitting, then I start adding supporting detail (links, visuals), clarifying terms with examples, and we have a very long post.  Or, the posts are split, requiring linking narratives.

So, here is the second three posts labeled “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s how they started on my reading a certain Red Herring Alert post written by someone in Minnesota, courtesy Dakota County Family Court Case, who is at risk of being incarcerated by the State of Minnesota for allegedly interfering with an allegedly (but now that past is being actively dismissed, as is typical for the family court venue in general) abusive father’s parental rights to access all children, including two teenagers who at the time made it quite clear they didn’t want that contact, or to live with him.
In fact, in this case, which on my part is hearsay — I understand he is also ordered to also receive child support payments and health insurance payments from his ex-wife, although the court seems to have already broken her back financially some years ago. But I do realize generally, this is about  par for the course in family court contested cases — SOMEONE is going to lose through attrition, and someone else is often going to win. What’s less well-known is how our federal government both stages some of these battles AND sets the stakes, places the odds on one party to win and another to lose.

Most people don’t stage bloodsports (which divorce, face it, sometimes literally is) and dramatic conflict through altruism, but usually because it’s good for business — that is to say, profits.  This is ALSO true, whether you like this news or not, as to HHS as a grant-making agency involved in the “Federal Designer Family” business (my terms) or, if you will “healthy marriage promotion/responsible fatherhood” business (their terms).  “HMRF!!”  Here, one can identify spectactors, promoters, agents, and the extended family of those actually in the ring.  There are the coaches, and the medics (obviously a necessary part of the deal)…and sometimes, crime-scene cleanup.

It is not a popular view to see a major federal agency primary purpose, as regards healing and helping families, to actually be “losing the money in the cracks, and keeping up the pressure on the middle- and of course, low-income population” by continually talking about debts and deficits.

And not talking about just how very large is the nonprofit sector, including the FBO nonprofit sector in this country, along with the religious-exempt organizations who tend to sponsor the same (and get to do so with complete lack of transparency as to their operations to the general public, and working with a handy set of volunteers and target audiences (for government programs, I’m talking) who typically are not well-informed on their leaders’ assets, liabilities, income and revenues — or just how many corporations the head pastors (in some denominations) may be setting up, controlled by them, and both 501©3 and for-profit LLCs.  And with who else are they setting these up.

Before you pass judgment on my supposedly unpatriotic and/or heretical attitude, my skepticism, or my so-called negativity, please put your hands, as I have been, on some of the evidence, and identified place where that evidence cannot be shown.

After doing this, give me a better way to describe the same evidence, or interpret it, and I’ll be glad to consider — if I see that you have actually looked at it, and have some insight into its existence in the first place. (Comments fields are appropriate places to do this).

---

That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016 by Dede Evavold, had on the top half, case-specific information about Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News

---

On the other end of the “prosecuting and jailing people for parental interference“ spectrum are countless cases where the authorities, including law enforcement AND the courts, didn’t give a cr@p about a fathers’ interference with mothers’ rights, even court-ordered ones.

As I’ve made clear periodically in this blog, I’m one of those mothers.  I also have seen the long-term, chronic impact of this on my family line (three generations of it).

The original alleged purpose for radically restructuring welfare (that is, the Social Security Act of 1934 as reframed in 1996 under the privatization and “Block Grants to States” and “fatherlessness is a social disease” logic), the rationale was an emotional mix — wrapped up in some social science rhetoric to make it seem less emotional (and racist/sexist) than it actually was, is that to help people out of poverty, they must constantly be reminded what got them there — too much sex too early (as opposed to safe sex, abstinence is the preferred FBO solution), and especially not getting or staying married. However, once the infrastructure was set in place — as no question, this “HMRF” grants stream has been — there’s nowhere to go but expand and perpetuate, re-brand and replicate — trademarking terms along the way as needed.

---

Along those lines —

Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture” (#1 of 3, Intro.)

It’s taking too long (nearly a week, sometimes) to get out these posts. While I’d rather just do this as one long one — as I learned, I added the material, which has now resulted in 18,000 words. Splitting this into three posts seems fair enough — the alternative being, I shut up — so it is now partitioned. Some language in the middle may refer to “below” when it’s actually in another section, but for the content, the value is still delivered. I used the same tags are the same for all three.

Speaking of value delivered year after year free of charge, here’s my “Donate” button for those with the inclination and the wherewithal. It’s processed through PayPal, so any amount accepted. I’m not a 501©3 though, so don’t do it for tax exemption purposes…because it’s not tax-deductible.

I included some of the surrounding text from my appeal on the sidebar:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the Systems Design, and the Designers, so Y.O.U. can Show Others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”

---

Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?  Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

---

Despite the blog’s appearance, I know what I’m doing! You’re looking at long-term leverage, in the hands of the “non-experts,” in the public interest, not public funded propaganda to drive business to private pockets. Hence, I’m not afraid to ask:

---

The formula wasn’t complex, but the concept itself was just so devious insidious, parasitic, grandiose, and by now, so baked into the economic, institutional infrastructure, people either don’t notice, or, in a common, cowardly, but all too human response they see, and just start denying, or looking for nicer explanations of an ugly truth — where it’s heading, and for lack of nicer, but still honest terms, it’s heading towards yet more slavery (and tolerating it) and genocide (and tolerating it).

Thanks for any contributions to the cause…

 

“Introduction”

The post has three major sectionsinstallments marked by titles of this size, alignment and color: each preceded by “Early Morning Intuitive on “The Larger Picture.”  This post is “Introduction,” then, the next will be:

Intermediate Section 

(TAGGS, FBOs, and Sex Prevention*) 

(a.k.a. “Abstinence Education”)

[And the last will actually be that “Early Morning Intuitive” writing]…and the one which inspired this post is the third (see below).  It started as a comment on a post over at Red Herring Alert, which had brought up things I report on, as well as progress of a case I’m also interested in for several reasons:  like how in the heck does an entire system, the family law system, whose self-declared leadership back in the 1970s emphasized new words and new practices to reduce the OLD language of criminal law in favor of the NEW language of behavioral health** — in order to rescue families, better, my dear— end up with multiple state-level, felony criminal prosecutions against one mother, another mother, and a married couple for actually helping protect children who had run away from, several say, an abusive situation?

**Check out that “Combating Divorce” link  which starts with a quote from parental-alienation-original Richard Gardner, M.D., or at least referencing him, followed by the sales pitch for “Collaborative Divorce” and Mediation — followed by the quote I was referencing above:  “new vs. old.”

In 1975, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) Review Editor Meyer Elkin, editorialized on the language of family law:

“Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law? Or is it something else? Is it a reflection of the prevailing ambivalence of this society which, on the one hand, tells people that divorce is okay, but by its actions, or lack thereof, shows that many still do not accept the idea of divorce in a pair-oriented society? We need to develop new words that will alleviate stress on the divorcing family rather than add to stresses already present…. Family law is entering a new period. There is now present an opportunity for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals regarding the strengthening of the family. Lets us now start the search for the words.”

And in the 20th Anniversary issue (1983) of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Review, Elkin commented on the ripple effect of transforming divorce from a battle into a process of healing and growth:

“Let all of us, in our own unique way, recommit ourselves to the search for the pebbles of change that can be cast into the social pond. Let us create a divorce process that recycles divorce pain into new patterns of personal and familial growth, which, in turn, will also strengthen our entire society. Let us protect our children from the unnecessary hazards of the divorce experience so that they, like their parents, can be strengthened by divorce rather than defeated by it. And let us never forget that if the lights go out in our children’s eyes, be they children of divorce or any other children, we will all live in darkness.”

What’s interesting — I found this by a straight Google search for Meyer Elkin’s 1975 speech.  However no link on the current menu of the fairly simple web page “divorcepeacemaking.com” leads to this page, or would alert the unaware that this individual has a high allegiance to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, as a “neutral” professional in the divorce field. Unless through exposure one knows the authors and noticed those on the Resources page as, largely AFCC also, i.e., Wallerstein, Kelly, Constance Ahrons, Philip Stahl, etc…

---

Yes, let’s get divorce away from the courtroom and into better and MUCH less scary-looking hands whose academic interests appeared to have been Germanic languages, apparently brilliant, but then(?) took a turn into a more guaranteed line of work — clinical psychology, educational psychology and counseling psychology in California’s State university system…====>

Carol R. Hughes, Ph.D., L.M.F.T., psychotherapist, in Laguna Hills, CA

And, rather than presenting evidence before merely a judge, why not get more paid professionals involved and let them work it out with divorcing couple?

Traditional Litigation — Courthouse and the couple below (“Subjected!” and the text says there are actually winners and losers, and it’s a battle);  Mediation, no judge and the couple on top (“You”l be in charge” and the text says the mediator is a neutral);Collaborative Divorce — the Gang’s all Here (images from same website FAQs page).

Each Parent has Divorce Coach & Attorney. “Family” has “Child Specialist” and “Neutral Financial Professional.” More accurately, this would have (3+3+2=)8 stick figures shown. The circle “Family” is emphasized, however more accurately it might read “Children” and have more figurines. What there really are more of is involved professionals — but no Judge. NO JUDGE and NOT IN COURT seems an overall goal, although most of one’s legal rights to due process, codes of evidence, the right to subpoena, etc. seems to exist when there IS a legal case.

 

What’s that about — reducing the competition in the “modern family rescue team” business– “No Parents Allowed!” ???

 

 

I’m starting to think the overall picture was to disarm and dilute prosecution of crime, in general, giving safe haven to certain kinds of crimes which are fairly unique to families.  (See also elimination of the seven prior causes of divorce — one of which included involvement in felonies — which “no-FAULT divorce” facilitated).   Redefining what is, and is not, a felony ???   Which brings me to the third section title:

Early Morning Intuitive on the Larger Picture.

Which is below the other sections, the bottom “third” of this post of this series.

In between are several charts, tables, basic vocabulary, and how to tell an HHS “tell”  for consideration.  It’s called “Early Morning Intuitive” because that’s what it was.  I’d had a nearly sleepless night after another, recent, psychic shock, although its accusations as some of the others, were pure “schlock” and was almost absent-mindedly reviewing a recent Red Herring Alert post, and noticed it had mentioned the federal funding.  This being familiar territory, I just opened my mouth (sic) and went into what ended up being a nonstop narrative that pretty much distills the essence of (this blog, and the larger picture).  It came out at least coherent enough to preserve on a post, not comment alone.

Pretty much what’s in between is much more analytical, show-and-tell, and labored.  That doesn’t make it any less valid.

Show and Tell is important.  But, if you just want “Tell” for a change (not my style), scroll or page down to that bottom section, and hopefully your eyes may peripherally catch some of the substance in between, for example, that it’s time to for more people to get hands-on to TAGGS.HHS.Gov, start using it (with observation in the “on” position) and asking some intelligent questions about what they see there, and what they do NOT see there, and how it does (or does NOT) correspond to other sources of information on the same data.

---

One reason my posts tend to get so long as I am talking about things people tend NOT to talk about it, and doing so using terms and resources that are also typically under-utilized, and some, so broad and vague in their symbolic meaning (example:  “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations” and anything labeled “_______ Prevention”) I feel it necessary to continue re-iterating what vocabulary might better describe how the entities (often government entities — here, a federal agency called “HHS” — actually are talking about — without really talking about it — if you know what I mean…

First of all, anything labeled XYZ “Prevention” (case in point in this post, having sex outside marriage, especially while a teenager) means running some programming, possibly developed originally by another organization already on the HHS grants stream, as a nonprofit or for-profit.  Case in point “Abstinence Education,” “The Center for Relationship Training” (Colorado) and it’s “WAIT Training” as well as a Stone Mountain, Georgia (?) FBO (Faith-Based Organization) called “More Than Conquerors, Inc.” whose most recent nearly $10M of funding and historic activity has centered around Abstinence Education — including using that WAIT Training Curriculum and targeting at-risk youth.  Meaning, typically, poor and/or of the darker-skinned ethnic backgrounds…

So, regarding some of these terms SHOULD you happen to stumble across the existence of $150M/year allocation (since 1996) and $10M allocation (since 1996) being run through HHS using such terms as “Fatherhood” “Marriage” “Faith-based Organizations,” and “_______ Prevention” including “family violence” or “child abuse” prevention, as well as good, positive words like “Healthy” and “Responsible” — know that:

There’s the intended meaning for the target audience — the bystanding public who IF they even hear about these social policies and programming, and the family courts as they exist now vis-a-vis diverting criminal prosecution of so-called “family/relationships” matters [[which what we used to mean by “domestic violence” or “child abuse” is rapidly becoming]] is supposed to feel great about all this when they file income taxes or deal with the IRS, or even thank their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their own wisdom in not having such crazy lifestyles?) that they aren’t facing some of the hellish circumstances some neighbors, or others heard about (on-line, in print, or locally/nationally) are, Grazzini-Rucki case in point, in which one family with young children is split into multiple pieces (including potentially some runaways, some in foster care, one or more pieces in jail or threatened with it) locked in chronic war with each other +conflicting stories about WHY from the presiding court-appointed professionals, and law enforcement and/or MSM contributing their insight and opinion on who’s the good guy and who’s the bad-guy and just how this ties into XYZ national problem….

….and then there’s the telegraphed meaning for those on the inside, participating program recipients, curricula providers, tax-exempt foundation backers, and I suppose potentially HHS employees** who thankfully, can routinely choose the same, or similar, organizations to distribute the largesse (grants) to THIS time. Many of these will be thanking their “lucky stars” (or God, or whomever, including perhaps their on sagacity in hooking up with, or forming 501©3s exempt from paying taxes on corporate revenues because they ARE the good guys (charitable service providers) — and these people know more directly what the symbolically, internationally, quasi-religious language actually means to their bottom line, conference circuits, write-offs, and social networking.   (**whether or not HHS employees feel this way, they at least currently have a job — and probably have a nice pension also….and health insurance, etc., and if they get laid off, some business connections in this field….)

2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers)

~ ~ ~

Post published Jan. 23, 2016; internal post title with active short-link added Feb. 12, 2019 (a practice I adopted later for easier cross-referencing either on the blog, or as applicable, on Twitter.  The short-links as generated by WordPress, unlike some other platforms, or in general, web or email addresses, are case-sensitive).  

This post broke a year-and-a-half hiatus in my blogging (not my research and writing on the topic, just publishing posts), necessary for personal (litigation/life transition) reasons.  My previous post was in June, 2014.  

While my main reason for overcoming the hiatus was the egregious situation in this high-profile case, attentive readers will notice that case was not the only, or primary, focus of this post (see tables, charts, domestic violence and other organizations profiled, post intro. and what I said (wrote) other than and between the quotes, tables, or organization profiles).  

2016 More Business As Usual in MN? (Criminalizing, Terrorizing, Jailing Mothers) (Case-sensitive WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-2QS”; word count including this identification and short preview, about 9,300 words)

~ ~ ~

I’ve been aware of an ongoing, escalating situation in Dakota County, Minnesota, involving a jailed mother facing multiple felony charges, a no doubt jubilant father undergoing reunification with his runaway teenaged daughters,  three (male) journalists who helped keep the police on-target, and pending felony charges for three others (one-and-a-half married couples) who allegedly helped with parental interference resulting from a custody order issued in the family court.

---

This mother of five became a fugitive long before she was accused of felony parental interference.  See news reports (some, below), and footnote, a  3/14/2013 post from the blog Carver County Corruption at the bottom of this post. The post dates to about a month before the girls ran away. It names involved professionals, but to those who pay attention, it also shows involved systems (such as child support) and the existence of family wealth as an incentive to “churn the case.”

Update to this post:  The 3/14/2013 post remains as footnote at the bottom, but I have removed my extended “dissertation” section on both Paul Reitman (showing other publications, persuasions, affiliations) and on the “NCJFCJ” which the comment mentioned, along with the NCJFCJ [National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges — a private, nonstock, nonprofit organization based out of University of Nevada-Reno, and one which you should learn about, and about which I have learned (a lot) and have a lot to say….] “family-serving” agencies systems-change “Greenbook” (1999 publication) and “The Greenbook Initiative” (eight-year pilot-demo-evaluation project involving NCJFCJ and historic friends among the domestic violence “industry” (I call it “cartel” — and I’m a survivor too,  but the term seems to apply).  This planned removal shortens the post by about one-third.  The removed material has already been published Feb. 25, 2016 under “What does Custody-Switching REALLY have to do with Unsound Psychological Theory? (Not much, actually)”

---

I want to call attention to what this, including this case, means for women (particularly mothers) and will continue to mean regardless of who (Democrat or Republican) is elected next President of the USA.

I want to talk about the off-stage actors, the executive producers, involved in any and all custody disputes in America.  I want to talk about the behind-the-curtain scripts which are running along the same lines throughout the country.

A business model is a business model.  Jailed mothers, righteously-indignant fathers supported by journalists, and runaway/reunified teenagers is not about law, justice, or representative government gone awry, gone “rogue.”  It’s about the same government having been outsourced and outflanked by the for-profit/not-for-profit [tax-exempt, privately controlled] corporate wealth working through (and with) public institutions. It’s also about what happens when the population goes to sleep on the above; on public/private coordinated operations which cross multiple jurisdictions.

Did I mention, it’s about moving the money, local, intermediate, inter/national?

This case, and that it’s possible in this country, is a power play by those involved which always comes with a “spin” to justify the excess force inflicted.  These outrageous custody cases, decade after decade, are therefore predictable outcomes of the larger business model in place, particularly but not only in the family court venues.